[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Virginia

I always thought that gun control is being able to hit the target. I do have 
a number of guns. All are cared for and used properly.
John
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jean-Claude D?sinor" <desinor@sympatico.ca>
To: <fahrvergnugen@cox.net>
Cc: <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Virginia


  That is interesting.
  It shows we need to define the word "gun control". What you describe
for OK is what I call "Gun Control". "CCW" is a permit to carry a
concealed weapon, right?
  The way you describe it is stringent enough that it will reduce the
likelihood of some deranged individual going on a rampage. That is OK
with me.
  Where we might differ is that I would like to see *every* firearm
registered.

    Jean-Claude
    84 8v (D -12 days)

fahrvergnugen@cox.net wrote:
> ---- Brendan Doyle <lord_verminaard@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Normally I would not get involved in an argument like this, but I think 
>> what really gets to me is the first official statement that I read (and I 
>> believe was the first statement released) out of the white house after it 
>> happened (and this was when the death count was still in the 20's) 
>> according to an "official Bush spokeswoman":
>
> "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but 
> that all laws must be followed."  Say what????  Could that be any more 
> insensitive?  To me that is just another way for him to say "shut up you 
> stupid liberals" before it even begins.
> ----------------------------
>
> I too thought this was stupid, and not in the Presidents' best interests. 
> If anything, it only gives cause to the lefties to argue more gun control.
> ---------------------------
>
>   Cause I know the first thing that was on my liberal mind was how this 
> shooting will affect my ability to own a firearm.  I like guns as much as 
> the next guy.  I do not own one although I might someday.  I sure as hell 
> am not going to carry the thing around with me.  Likewise, I really am 
> uncomfortable with the idea that there are dozens of other people walking 
> around carrying a firearm.  If something goes down in a store where I am 
> shopping, the LAST thing I would want is a gunfight breaking out because 
> some "tough guy" citizen carrying a gun wants to be a hero and kill the 
> bad guy.  So instead of one crazy with a gun (who, the majority of the 
> time has no real intention of shooting anyone, just using it for leverage)
>
>>  you have two, and both of them suddenly have a reason to start shooting. 
>> If you want a gun in your house, fine- shooting at an intruder at least 
>> reduces the chance that you will hurt anyone else besides the attacker or 
>> anyone in your house at the time.
>>
> -----------------------------
>
> That's just the thing, though.  Here in OK., to get a CCW, you have to go 
> through a reasonably rigorous training, as well as to understand that if 
> you are going to -show- your gun, you are going to -use- it.  To maintain 
> your CCW, you have to go in every so often (I think every 2 years) and 
> recertify yourself.  Certification includes being able to hit a target X 
> number of times within X number of seconds, as well as some discussion of 
> how to watch-out for innocent bystanders.  Ultimately, those with CCW are 
> nearly as well trained as many police officers with regards to how to use 
> the gun well in differing environments.  This is compounded by the fact 
> that they have to recertify regularly.  Your example would be plausible in 
> a movie, but not in most states.
> ----------------------------
> Gun control is not going to completely solve the issue, and I agree with 
> what others are saying.  But the problem is this- until we have a way to 
> profile people from birth to find out if they are going to snap or go 
> crazy, it has to be done.  Spare me the "invasion of privacy blah blah 
> blah" unless you can think of a better way.   Now, I have not heard if the 
> shooter at Virginia legally purchased those weapons, but I'd be willing 
> that he didn't.   A large, LARGE part of the problem is illegal weapons 
> sales- but the only real cure is to keep "at risk" people from obtaining 
> weapons. ---------------------------
>
> He did legally purchase both guns.
> ---------------------------------------
>  I do not care if it's fair or not.  Put it this way- my girlfriend was 
> shot by a stray bullet while she was walking through public land- the 
> owner of the gun did not have it registered, and obviously did not have 
> any training if he was shooting it off of his back porch.  Thankfully, she 
> was not seriously injured- although if the bullet had hit three inches to 
> the left it would have hit her spine,
>
>>  then what would have happened?  As much as everyone hates the idea, 
>> start profiling people more.  If they do not meet the requirements, 
>> sorry, no gun for you.  Combine that with cracking down on illegal gun 
>> sales and it WILL reduce the amount of gun-related assault/homicide.  I 
>> also think people should be profiled before they get a drivers license, 
>> more specifically if they do not meet a certain IQ requirement but that 
>> is a whole different issue.  :P
>>
> ------------------------------
>
> I can't argue with the IQ/DL argument, however tracking illegal gun sales 
> is not a realistic goal.  Law abiding citizens are not the issue here, 
> criminals are.  I don't have a link to provide, but everything I have seen 
> says that folks with CCW are -mcuh- more likely to -avert- crime, than to 
> start it.  I have seen this a few different times, but for the life of me 
> cannot recall where the statistics were posted...
> -------------------------------
> I do not like political arguments, and I do not like to disagree with 
> people- by nature I avoid conflict so please do not feel like I am 
> attacking or trying to disprove anyone else's opinions, I'm just saying 
> what I feel.
> -----------------------
>
> No worries, no offense taken.  :-)  I am just offering an opinion back. 
> As long as we can all agree that no -one- person has the answers, then I 
> will be right...    :-)
>
> David
> ----------
> Brendan
> 84 Scirocco 8v <-- TDI in progress
> 01 Jeep TJ 4.0
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "fahrvergnugen@cox.net" <fahrvergnugen@cox.net>
> To: scirocco-l@scirocco.org; desinor@sympatico.ca
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:40:39 AM
> Subject: Re: Virginia
>
>
> ---- "Jean-Claude D?sinor" <desinor@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>   Like it or not, eventually some form of gun control will happen.
>>   I understand that US Citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms.
>>   I understand also that someone can kill with a baseball bat or a hockey 
>> puck.
>>
>
> We already have forms of gun control in place, they vary greatly from 
> state.  They may not have been strong enough to prevent this tragedy, but 
> ultimately they cannot.  The only manner this sort of crap could be 
> contained is if -more- folks we armed, while properly trained.  Do you 
> imagine that good, law abiding citizens who carry would have done nothing 
> if they saw this happening?
>
>
>>   I am a Canadian, but we did lose a Canadian teacher in that mishap, so 
>> that gives me (some) qualification to speak my mind :-)
>>   Given that, please consider the following:
>>   - a baseball bat (or a shovel or a kitchen knife) requires some skill 
>> to be used for killing. Not a firearm, the primary purpose of a firearm 
>> is to kill. Even small kids can do it.
>>
>
> So, because a tool is designed to kill, it is inherently evil?  Guns can 
> take no actions in and of themselves, they are inanimate, and therefore 
> free of responsibility, unlike man.
>
>
>>   - since we register automobiles, there is no big technical challenge to 
>> register guns. (although some crooks made a bundle screwing up Canada's 
>> gun registry.)
>>
>
> An ex-con might disagree with you.  Or someone with mental problems, 
> etc...
>
>
>>   So everyone has the right (constitutional or not) to own a car or a 
>> driver's license. Yet you have to learn to drive and pass an exam before 
>> you get a license, and your car is registered. What's the big hangup 
>> about requiring a license for a firearm and registering a gun?
>>
>
> Again, most states already have controls in place.  They cannot, nor 
> should they be capable of determining the likelihood that someone will 
> snap.  And if and when that happens, I would like to have a weapon to 
> defend myself.
> I have no idea what it is like in Canada, but let me explain to you how 
> the police work in the States.  They are -not- responsible for defending 
> US citizens, and the battles in court to that effect back-up my 
> ssertion.  --There was a woman in CO. who had three kids by her estranged 
> husband, two girls and a boy I think, all under 10 years of age.  The two 
> were divorced and had joint custody.  He came and got the kids one day 
> when he was not scheduled to do so, and took them to a nearby amusement 
> park.  The kids called the mom a few times from the park, saying 
> everything was okay, but there was a restraining order to prevent him from 
> taking the kids (IIRC).  Long-story-short, she calls the cops several 
> times to tell them that the father took the kids and she feared for their 
> lives, they did nothing.  The father ended-up killing all three of his 
> kids, and then commited suicide by cop at the doorsteps of the 
> policestation.  Now, I tell you all this sad story to illustrate one
>
>>  simple thing; who is responsible for protecting you and your family? 
>> Who can you trust to do the most important job anyone here can think of? 
>> The police were taken to court, and they won.  The police are -not- 
>> responsible for each and every persons' defense.  Search our legal system 
>> and discover it for yourself.
>>
>
> No thanks, I would like the ability to defend myself if I need to.
>
>
>>   Last September, in Montreal, a young man went berserk and went on a 
>> rampage. He had a legally registered firearm. He was known to have a 
>> violent web site and to have mental problems,  but that . The gun he used 
>> was a Beretta CX4. Splendid machine, see for yourself: 
>> <http://www.cx4storm.com/>
>>   Why the heck is someone allowed to have such a weapon in a non-combat 
>> situation?
>>
>
> I've no idea, but it has little to do with this argument IMO.
>
>
>>   I do not know what weapon was involved in VT, but I bet if there were 
>> reasonable controls he would be at least limited in his ability to hurt 
>> so many people.
>>
>
> 'Reasonable' as outlined by who?  While I would love to agree with you, 
> guns are not the issue here.  He had two pistols, nothing as impressive as 
> posted above.
>
>   Unless of course some determined victims stormed him,
>> but civilians faced with a powerful killing machine might not react like 
>> that.
>>
>
> What if they themselves were armed?  How many lives do you think could 
> have been saved if someone was properly trained, and had an sidearm?
>
>
>>   Yes, you have the right to bear arms, but take some precautions. You do 
>> protect yourself for sex, no?
>>
>>
>
> Depends on how dangerous I am feeling at the moment...  :-)
> Guns are tools, they can be used for good, or evil.  If you believe that 
> they are only used for evil, then your lack of experience with guns is 
> clouding your judgement.  I am not necessarily an advocate for automatic 
> weapons, but I -do- advocate more folks having licenses for 
> concealed/carry.
>
> David
>
>
>>     Jean-Claude
>>     84 8v (step on the gas if it smells like danger!)
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>



_______________________________________________
Scirocco-l mailing list
Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l